> For people like Ron who have had the scope for a few more week now,
> care to gave us some follow ups??
>
> Especially comparing them to similar sized RFT, from Tak FS78, to the
> Chinese 80 F5. On both visual, photo, and CCD performances.

I haven't had nearly the time to use this scope as I'd like, but
I have played around with mounting it a bit, and I do have some
more comments...

1. The tube is one inch (25mm) too short. There isn't an eyepiece
in my collection that I don't have to pull out a bit to reach focus,
even with a 2" (TeleVue) diagonal.

2. Related to point 1, the tube is difficult to mount and balance
on a garden variety (in my case, Vixen Polaris) GEM. I can only
use one of the supplied rings, so the scope is a bit less stable
than I'd like. I suspect that with a proper adapter it would be
easier, as I could locate the mounting rings close together and
use both of them. However, even then the focuser knobs will interfere
with the head, so that only the full rotation of the focuser won't
be possible. Shortening the tube won't help this, but adding
some weight to the business end will.

3. The focus lock/roller clutch works well. I did a bit of solar
photography yesterday, and focus stayed put nicely after locking
everything down. Camera was an OM1, so I wasn't pushing it, but
I think it will work well for the task that I acquired the instrument
for (eclipse photography). I'll be posting the images on my own
website in the coming days for anyone's edification and amusement
at my very green technique ;-).

4. The optics and baffling on this scope are excellent. Still haven't
gotten a proper star test done, but I expect it to be very good. The
views through the scope are very nice indeed, even though the aperture
is small.

Going forward, I expect to fabricate a new adapter plate
for my current mount for use at home. For travel use, I'll
have to come up with an appropriate head for a heavy duty camera
tripod (probably a Velbon Carmagne). This will either involve
a barn door of some sort (type IV?) or if I'm feeling flush
perhaps I'll just spring for the Tak Sky Patrol II.

Archer Sully
Boulder, CO

Ron Wodaski

I created an illustration that shows how to best balance the Megrez for imaging, but it also applies to the use of weighty eyepieces. The basic idea is to

Message 2 of 4
, Jan 1, 2001

I created an illustration that shows how to best balance the Megrez for
imaging, but it also applies to the use of weighty eyepieces. The basic idea
is to offset the scope from the center of the mount head by using an
over-sized dovetail. I uploaded the illustration to the Files section of
this egroup:

Note also the use of an extension tube. You can also use one visually. The
ideal solution is one that threads onto the diagonal, but a conventional
extension tube will also work. A threaded extension tube is supplied with
the Megrez for imaging, if I am not mistaken; I will have to see if there is
an arrangement that would let you use it with eyepieces as well.

From an imager's point of view, it is always better to have a shorter tube,
as one can always make up the difference with extension tubes. There is
nothing simple you can do about a tube that is too long.

> For people like Ron who have had the scope for a few more week now,
> care to gave us some follow ups??
>
> Especially comparing them to similar sized RFT, from Tak FS78, to the
> Chinese 80 F5. On both visual, photo, and CCD performances.

I haven't had nearly the time to use this scope as I'd like, but
I have played around with mounting it a bit, and I do have some
more comments...

1. The tube is one inch (25mm) too short. There isn't an eyepiece
in my collection that I don't have to pull out a bit to reach focus,
even with a 2" (TeleVue) diagonal.

2. Related to point 1, the tube is difficult to mount and balance
on a garden variety (in my case, Vixen Polaris) GEM. I can only
use one of the supplied rings, so the scope is a bit less stable
than I'd like. I suspect that with a proper adapter it would be
easier, as I could locate the mounting rings close together and
use both of them. However, even then the focuser knobs will interfere
with the head, so that only the full rotation of the focuser won't
be possible. Shortening the tube won't help this, but adding
some weight to the business end will.

3. The focus lock/roller clutch works well. I did a bit of solar
photography yesterday, and focus stayed put nicely after locking
everything down. Camera was an OM1, so I wasn't pushing it, but
I think it will work well for the task that I acquired the instrument
for (eclipse photography). I'll be posting the images on my own
website in the coming days for anyone's edification and amusement
at my very green technique ;-).

4. The optics and baffling on this scope are excellent. Still haven't
gotten a proper star test done, but I expect it to be very good. The
views through the scope are very nice indeed, even though the aperture
is small.

Going forward, I expect to fabricate a new adapter plate
for my current mount for use at home. For travel use, I'll
have to come up with an appropriate head for a heavy duty camera
tripod (probably a Velbon Carmagne). This will either involve
a barn door of some sort (type IV?) or if I'm feeling flush
perhaps I'll just spring for the Tak Sky Patrol II.

I created an illustration that shows how to best balance the Megrez for imaging, but it also applies to the use of weighty eyepieces. The basic idea is to

Message 3 of 4
, Jan 1, 2001

I created an illustration that shows how to best balance the Megrez for
imaging, but it also applies to the use of weighty eyepieces. The basic idea
is to offset the scope from the center of the mount head by using an
over-sized dovetail. I uploaded the illustration to the Files section of the
Wm. Optics egroup:

This technique can be used with any wide-field, fast refractor. Note also
the use of an extension tube. You can also use one visually. The ideal
solution is one that threads onto the diagonal, but a conventional extension
tube will also work. A threaded extension tube is supplied with the Megrez
for imaging, if I am not mistaken; I will have to see if there is an
arrangement that would let you use it with eyepieces as well.

From an imager's point of view, it is always better to have a shorter tube,
as one can always make up the difference with extension tubes. There is
nothing simple you can do about a tube that is too long.

> For people like Ron who have had the scope for a few more week now,
> care to gave us some follow ups??
>
> Especially comparing them to similar sized RFT, from Tak FS78, to the
> Chinese 80 F5. On both visual, photo, and CCD performances.

I haven't had nearly the time to use this scope as I'd like, but
I have played around with mounting it a bit, and I do have some
more comments...

1. The tube is one inch (25mm) too short. There isn't an eyepiece
in my collection that I don't have to pull out a bit to reach focus,
even with a 2" (TeleVue) diagonal.

2. Related to point 1, the tube is difficult to mount and balance
on a garden variety (in my case, Vixen Polaris) GEM. I can only
use one of the supplied rings, so the scope is a bit less stable
than I'd like. I suspect that with a proper adapter it would be
easier, as I could locate the mounting rings close together and
use both of them. However, even then the focuser knobs will interfere
with the head, so that only the full rotation of the focuser won't
be possible. Shortening the tube won't help this, but adding
some weight to the business end will.

3. The focus lock/roller clutch works well. I did a bit of solar
photography yesterday, and focus stayed put nicely after locking
everything down. Camera was an OM1, so I wasn't pushing it, but
I think it will work well for the task that I acquired the instrument
for (eclipse photography). I'll be posting the images on my own
website in the coming days for anyone's edification and amusement
at my very green technique ;-).

4. The optics and baffling on this scope are excellent. Still haven't
gotten a proper star test done, but I expect it to be very good. The
views through the scope are very nice indeed, even though the aperture
is small.

Going forward, I expect to fabricate a new adapter plate
for my current mount for use at home. For travel use, I'll
have to come up with an appropriate head for a heavy duty camera
tripod (probably a Velbon Carmagne). This will either involve
a barn door of some sort (type IV?) or if I'm feeling flush
perhaps I'll just spring for the Tak Sky Patrol II.

I ve used mine nearly every clear night. This is what I ve found so far: Tube balance - so far not a problem. I have it mounted to an old Vixen Polaris Mount

Message 4 of 4
, Jan 2, 2001

I've used mine nearly every clear night. This is what I've found so
far:

Tube balance - so far not a problem. I have it mounted to an old
Vixen Polaris Mount with the Vixen Universal Mounting Plate. Seems to
balance just fine in this config - using 2"diag and 12mm Nagler. I
have not tried to do photography yet so unsure how a CCD or 35mm cam
+ T-Adapter would change things. Will try this week. I will say I
have another 2 inches of forward travel with this plate before the
rotating focuser would become a problem.

Focus - I've solved my 1 1/4 eyepiece issues but using a 2" diag and
a TV 1 1/4 adapter. Will now focus ALL my 1 1/4 eyepieces with plenty
of travel. Still a problem with 2" eyepieces though - especially my
12mm Nagler (I hate using this in the 1 1/4 mode), and a custom 2"
Barlow. I have a 2", 2" high adapter that works well here though.

Optics - Images are very nice. I'm not the best star tester, but
rings seem to be the same on both sides of focus and round. Two
things: cool down - This scope takes longer to cool down then any
other ref. I've ever owned. not sure why(?). Don't even think about
pin-point images or star test for nearly 2 hours. Color: Worse then
I expected quite frankly. I see color with just about any brand
eyepiece at around 70X (at the edges even lower) - though not bad.
Really makes images "softer" at 160X or so. Maybe its just me, or my
eyepieces.... I've taken the scope to around 400X (for giggles...:-)
and found the images actually hold up on the moon and Jupiter -
though w/ lots of color. Seems the most comfotable zone though is 50-
100X. One last thing on the color - most if not all is blue flare -
very little green - ?

--- In William-Optics@egroups.com, Archer Sully <archer@m...> wrote:
> sparc64v@y... wrote:
>
> > For people like Ron who have had the scope for a few more week
now,
> > care to gave us some follow ups??
> >
> > Especially comparing them to similar sized RFT, from Tak FS78, to
the
> > Chinese 80 F5. On both visual, photo, and CCD performances.
>
> I haven't had nearly the time to use this scope as I'd like, but
> I have played around with mounting it a bit, and I do have some
> more comments...
>
> 1. The tube is one inch (25mm) too short. There isn't an eyepiece
> in my collection that I don't have to pull out a bit to reach focus,
> even with a 2" (TeleVue) diagonal.
>
> 2. Related to point 1, the tube is difficult to mount and balance
> on a garden variety (in my case, Vixen Polaris) GEM. I can only
> use one of the supplied rings, so the scope is a bit less stable
> than I'd like. I suspect that with a proper adapter it would be
> easier, as I could locate the mounting rings close together and
> use both of them. However, even then the focuser knobs will
interfere
> with the head, so that only the full rotation of the focuser won't
> be possible. Shortening the tube won't help this, but adding
> some weight to the business end will.
>
> 3. The focus lock/roller clutch works well. I did a bit of solar
> photography yesterday, and focus stayed put nicely after locking
> everything down. Camera was an OM1, so I wasn't pushing it, but
> I think it will work well for the task that I acquired the
instrument
> for (eclipse photography). I'll be posting the images on my own
> website in the coming days for anyone's edification and amusement
> at my very green technique ;-).
>
> 4. The optics and baffling on this scope are excellent. Still
haven't
> gotten a proper star test done, but I expect it to be very good.
The
> views through the scope are very nice indeed, even though the
aperture
> is small.
>
> Going forward, I expect to fabricate a new adapter plate
> for my current mount for use at home. For travel use, I'll
> have to come up with an appropriate head for a heavy duty camera
> tripod (probably a Velbon Carmagne). This will either involve
> a barn door of some sort (type IV?) or if I'm feeling flush
> perhaps I'll just spring for the Tak Sky Patrol II.
>
> Archer Sully
> Boulder, CO

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.